Skip to main content

Accused cannot be added to a pending case at mere asking of police

Lower courts should not include every other individual pinned down by the police as an accused in criminal cases without calling for materials to prove their involvement and getting satisfied, prima facie, about the need to prosecute them, the Madras High Court Bench here has said. Justice S. Nagamuthu made the observation while setting aside an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate at Uthamapalayam in Theni district on March 12, 2007 including two individuals as additional accused in a cheating case at the mere asking of the Rayappanpatti police and without any basis.

The judge pointed out that the police had initially booked the case against only one individual. Subsequently, an Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting the Magistrate to add two more individuals as accused in the case. The petition did not contain any detail about the materials available with the prosecution to array the two as additional accused and as to how were they involved in the crime. Yet, the Magistrate allowed the petition and added the duo as accused forcing them to approach the High Court.

Shocked over the injustice that had been caused to the two individuals, Mr. Justice Nagamuthu said: “In the instant case, I regret to say that both the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Judicial Magistrate have failed to discharge their legal obligation in a proper manner.

“I do not understand as to how a Judicial Magistrate can pass such a non-speaking order without reference to the evidence and without reference to the requirement under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. This is a classic example of how a judicial order should not be passed by any court.”

The judge directed the High Court Registry to forward of a copy of his order to the Magistrate, who was presiding over the court in Uthamapalayam in March 2007, “if he is in service even now and wherever he is, so that he does not repeat the same mistake in the future.”

 Article referred: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/accused-cannot-be-added-to-a-pending-case-at-mere-asking-of-police-says-high-court/article7128115.ece

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more